1. The author of the
communication, dated 30 April 1990, is H. J. H., a Dutch citizen born on 12
October 1948, residing in Putten, the Netherlands. He claims to be a victim
of a violation by the Netherlands of article 14, paragraph 2, of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE
AUTHOR:

2.1 The Dutch legislation
governing the registration and circulation of motor vehicles obliges car
owners to display, on the windscreen of their cars, a vignette proving that
the vehicle is duly registered. On 25 June 1985, the author was fined for
having displayed a vignette which was no longer valid. He appealed to the
District Tribunal (Arrondissementsrechtsbank) of Zwolle, which declared the
earlier decision null and void and adopted another one which sentenced the
author to pay a fine of 75 Dutch guilders. His appeal to the Supreme Court (Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden) was dismissed on 3 March 1987.

2.2 The author submitted
his case to the European Commission of Human Rights, where he argued that
his conviction constituted a violation of the principle of presumption of
innocence (article 6, paragraph 2, of the European Convention). On 13 July
1989, the European Commission declared his communication inadmissible as
"manifestly ill-founded", pursuant to article 27, paragraph 2, of the
European Convention.

THE COMPLAINT:

3. The author contends
that by requiring car owners to display a vignette on their vehicles, Dutch
legislation is actually forcing them to prove that they are not in violation
of the rules governing registration of motor vehicles. The obligation to
prove one's innocence constitutes, in the author's opinion, a violation of
the presumption of innocence under article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.

ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE:

4.1 Before considering any
claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in
accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not a
communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

4.2 Taking into account
the requirements laid down in articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol, the
Committee has examined whether the facts as submitted would raise prima
facie issues under any provision of the Covenant and concludes that they do
not. The Committee observes that the conditions for declaring a
communication admissible include, inter alia, that the claims submitted be
sufficiently substantiated and do not constitute an abuse of the right of
submission. The author's communication reveals that these conditions have
not been met.

5. The Human Rights
Committee therefore decides:

(a) that the
communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional
Protocol;

(b) that this decision
shall be communicated to the author of the communication and, for
information, to the State party.